https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252502 The court upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) based on the circumstances of delay in payment, citing a reasonable period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the imposition of penalty without discretion under the Central Excise Rules, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The court also concluded that the penalty proceedings initiated after five years under the Compounded Levy Scheme were within a reasonable period of limitation, and no substantial question of law arose regarding the applicability of Section 38A to obligations under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252502 The court upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) based on the circumstances of delay in payment, citing a reasonable period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the imposition of penalty without discretion under the Central Excise Rules, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The court also concluded that the penalty proceedings initiated after five years under the Compounded Levy Scheme were within a reasonable period of limitation, and no substantial question of law arose regarding the applicability of Section 38A to obligations under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252502